Its Not The Keystone Pipeline, Its Now 'Obama's' Pipeline, page 4

reply to post by Southern Guardian

---

When he approves it on his watch, it will be his legacy.
That was the premise of the OP based on the numerous sources.

Originally posted by burntheships
reply to post by Southern Guardian

---

When he approves it on his watch, it will be his legacy.

This is correct, however who's fault is it if the Southern portion of the keystone pipeline goes ahead and turns out to have a negative impact? Is it just Obama's fault? As you clearly put it, it's all on his "lap". Or do we hold the Republicans and Democrats equally responsible? And bare in mind, it was the Republicans who initially pushed for the project to go forward.

reply to post by Southern Guardian

---

I am not interested in partisan politics, Obama has the power to stop it
if it is not in the nations best interest. Will he?

reply to post by burntheships

---

I am not interested in partisan politics,

and this is why you're trying to put all the blame on Obama when he can't do this without the consent of congress? And he isn't the only one that supports it?

Not interested in partisan politics you say?

Obama has the power to stop it

So does congress.

Obama supporters it, so do the Republicans (the Republicans more so as they pushed the original midwestern keystone project to go ahead), so stop trying to protect them.

reply to post by Southern Guardian

---

Has Obama retired his veto pen?
When was the last time he used it?

Originally posted by burntheships
reply to post by Southern Guardian

---

Has Obama retired his veto pen?

You do know that congress can still override a veto right? You do know as well that many congressional representatives, most of whom are Republicans, have pushed for the keystone project. So it doesn't matter whether or not Obama could "veto" it.

Why are you trying to protect the Republicans again?

reply to post by Southern Guardian

---

Not quite that simple to overide a presidential Veto,
it would take 2/3 majority, then must be sent to the other house,
again with 2/3 majority. Only then could it be undone.

Clearly, Obama is for the pipeline, and has no interest in stopping it,
yet is perfectly willing to let someone else take the blame.

Originally posted by burntheships
reply to post by Southern Guardian

---

Not quite that simple to overide a presidential Veto

It doesn't matter burntheships. If enough Republicans and Democrats oppose it, the veto can be overridden.

Fact: The Republicans overwhelmingly support the keystone pipeline, as do a good number of Democrats. There are also a good number of Democrats who oppose the keystone pipeline due to the views of their constituency, so a veto would be very possible if the Republicans really opposed it.

Clearly, Obama is for the pipeline, and has no interest in stopping it,

Neither do the Republicans.

You know I'd be sitting here agreeing with you on many things if your "bash Obama" agenda wasn't so readily apparent. This isn't really about whether or not the keystone pipeline gets put in place. The fact of the matter is that you would not be able to care less about all this if Obama was out of the picture.

reply to post by burntheships

---

Is Obama so weak he would not use his Veto powers to try?

What kind of argument is this, considering that Obama does not oppose the southern portion of the keystone pipeline. You must be confused but my argument was never about whether or not Obama supported alternative routes to the keystone project, he has supported it for over a year now, hence my previous links.

You can keep speculating,

What's there to speculate? Congress can override a presidential veto? No? And what difference does it make anyway, the Republicans would overwhelmingly support the keystone project regardless of their ability to veto or not, so it makes this argument of yours a moot.

reply to post by burntheships

---

Well I am not too keen on the accuracy of your assumptions, but consider this:
Our last Presidents of late have all mentioned Reducing Our Dependence on Foreign Oil.
Historically, our alliances with The Crown and Canada would raise the consideration as that of
Partners rather than "Foreign".This Oil you speak of would not entirely be shipped to China.
However, this resource would certainly reduce American Foreign Debt.

Geopolitical Influence is reduced by Incurring Debt.
Reducing Debt RESTORES Geopolitical Influence.

The United States and its Dependable Allies around The Globe
seek to achieve Balance and Further the Human Rights Agenda.

This is not exactly a Near Term Profit Situation.
This is a Long Term Resolution.

So consider this for a moment if you would :

If Romney was elected, this situation would still exist.

S&F to you

reply to post by Wildmanimal

---

As always, thanks for your genuine comments,
and hats off to you too.

This may be a consideration....

And as for Romney, well it is a large possibility as one usually loses
integrity with the gain of power.

reply to post by burntheships

---

Like wise Burntheships.
I have enjoyed your intelligence and comments for a few years now.
Best, Wildmanimal

reply to post by Southern Guardian

---

And bare in mind, it was the Republicans who initially pushed for the project to go forward.

yes, assuming the oil would go to AMERICANS, not sold to china. this won't reduce our debt because obama will just end up increasing spending, instead of putting the money aside to lower our debt.

how do i know? his recent "spending cuts" plan featured a massive tax hike. it wasn't about cutting spending, it was about increasing government revenue.

reply to post by Bob Sholtz

---

yes, assuming the oil would go to AMERICANS, not sold to china.

Republicans did not support the keystone project under the condition that it be used solely for domestic consumption, they just supported the project unconditionally and claimed it would benefit americans and only americans.

Republicans voted against an amendment to the keystone bill which made it a condition that the oil remain for the benefit of Americans:

Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) offered an amendment to keep oil from the Keystone pipeline in the U.S. — echoing a failed amendment from a markup last week to keep natural gas tapped in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for domestic use.

Markey said his amendment is intended to prevent only refined petroleum products like gasoline, diesel fuel and jet fuel from being exported.

Read more: www.politico.com...
clerk.house.gov...

Originally posted by burntheships

Originally posted by newcovenant
some environmental group said the statement and assessment put out by the State Department was nothing short of "malpractice."

It is, a total sellout of America.
Both sides, Dems too are backing this. Its truely disgusting!
business.financialpost.com...

It is a total sell out or do the energy companies own us already?
Look at fracking too. People don't want it but it is pushed on their neighbors with unheard of amounts of cash and pits one against the other. Totally unethical. Who is running who? Makes me wonder.

A Really Sad Picture That I Saw Today, Left Me Speechless
  Posted 12 days ago with 148 member flags

Fact Check: First Lady\'s False Fairy Tale of Struggle
  Posted 6 days ago with 81 member flags

Mitt Romney Accidentally Confronts A Gay Veteran; Awesomeness Ensues
  Posted 6 days ago with 72 member flags

Coal miners say they were forced to attend Romney event and donate
  Posted 14 days ago with 71 member flags

Stephen King\'s Message
  Posted 10 days ago with 71 member flags

The United States has collapsed economically, socially, politically, legally, constitutionally, and
  Posted 15 days ago with 44 member flags

A Perfect Example Of How America Is Turning Into A Police State? Look At Tampa Bay
  Posted 18 days ago with 41 member flags

Paul Ryan Exposes Elite Agenda, "Shut Up" Says Banker
  Posted 10 days ago with 40 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: